Can an Evil Dead update turn what was only a cult hit into a bona fide box office success?
Genre: Horror
Premise: (from imdb) Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods. The evil presence possesses them until only one is left to fight for survival.
About: The original “The Evil Dead” was shot for $90,000 and ended up grossing 2.4 million dollars worldwide. Not a breakout hit by any means, but any film that grosses 25x its original investment is considered a success. It ended up putting director Sam Raimi on the map, and he subsequently made two sequels to the film. Many years later, Raimi would trade horror for family entertainment by making the Spider-Man trilogy. The Evil Dead eventually became a cult classic, with the stories of its intense production being almost as entertaining as the movie itself. The cast and crew slept in the cabin they shot in, leading to tons of tension and arguments. Many people were injured during filming but they were in such a remote area that they couldn’t get medical help. Towards the end of production, the weather had gotten so cold that they started burning furniture to stay warm. The film gained acclaim when it was screened at Cannes, out of competition, and Stephen King went bonkers over it, telling everyone he knew that it was the best horror film he’d seen in years. King’s endorsement inspired many to check out the film who otherwise wouldn’t have. – Of course, when you have a classic anything, Hollywood requires you to remake it at some point. So that’s where we are today, with the new film coming out Friday. It’s said that Raimi helped write the new version, but this draft I read lists only director Fede Alvarez and Rodo Mendez as writers. Not sure if Raimi didn’t come on afterwards and clean things up, or just go uncredited. Strangely enough, Juno scribe Diablo Cody was also brought in late to give the script a punch-up.
Writers: Fede Alvarez & Rodo Mendez (based on the movie “The Evil Dead” by Sam Raimi).
Details: 102 pages – October, 2011 draft
I’m about to lose the little geek cred I still had left with this shocking announcement, but yes, it’s true: I’ve never seen The Evil Dead. I feel a little ashamed to say that. Mainly because I watched an episode of that ABC reality show “Splash” the other day, where washed-up celebrities make fools out of themselves by attempting to dive off a 3 story platform. Which means that I’ve seen SPLASH but not THE EVIL DEAD. Ouch. However, I just watched the trailer a second ago and it looks scary! Well, 70s scary at least.
As for this new one, I don’t know how I feel yet. I watched the trailer for it as well and outside of the chick who comes out of the floor and starts singing a creepy song, it looked like your standard horror film. From what I understand, the original Evil Dead was really innovative for its time. Raimi was using Dutch angles and dollying and steadicam, things you just hadn’t seen in a horror film before. And it was ultra-gory. Moreso than any horror film before it. The film actually received an X rating, which was unheard of for a horror film.
You just can’t innovate those things these days unfortunately. We’ve seen every gross horror image known to man by this point. Tilted angles are far from fresh. Many of the things that made the original such a good film aren’t available to filmmakers anymore, which means the script is dependent entirely on its story. And unfortunately, sending 5 people out to a cabin in the woods isn’t exactly a fresh story.
I was just discussing this with a friend the other day when we were trying to figure out what JJ was going to do to make Star Wars relevant again. The thing about the original Star Wars was how innovative its effects were. We’d never experienced space like that. We’d never experienced ships and aliens like that. That’s one of the many reasons the prequels were so lame. There was nothing about them that was inventive or new. Which meant their success depended entirely on their stories. And we all know how good those stories were. Ahem.
Anyway, I don’t know how Star Wars entered into this equation, so let’s jump into the plot for the new Evil Dead before I start comparing Wedge Antilles’ flying tactics to Luke’s. 30 year old David and 20-something Natalie have recently gotten engaged. However, not everything’s peachy in Happyland. David hasn’t set a date for the wedding yet, and that’s pissing Natalie off, who’s convinced that David is afraid of commitment.
The two are heading to a – yup, you guessed it – old cabin in the middle of nowhere, where they’ll meet up with David’s little sister, 26 year old Mia. Mia, it turns out, is rail thin due to a rather large heroin habit she can’t kick. Enter this get-together. A group of friends will join her out in the middle of nowhere and help her through the 3 day detox period.
Which leads us to our final duo, the scruffy Eric and his girlfriend Olivia. Dumb Eric will play a hefty role in this trip. He discovers an old book in the basement that has all sorts of warnings written on it like “Don’t read this book,” “Put this book down.” “This book will kill you.” Etc. Etc. So what does Eric do? He reads the book!
This unleashes some sort of demon gang onto the house that immediately takes possession of Mia. The problem is, when Mia starts acting all demon-like, they just assume she’s coming down from the heroin. But that changes when Mia starts trying to kill people. That’s when they figure, “Eh, maybe this doesn’t have anything to do with the heroin afterall.”
After Eric tells David about the book and how he might have accidentally unleashed demons on them, the two read up on the solution, which breaks down to them having to kill Mia with the most horrifying death imaginable, as that’s the only way the demon will exit Mia’s body or something. Horrifying death options include setting her on fire and burying her alive. You know, the usual horrifying death stuff. But will David be able to murder his own sister? And even if he can, will he be able to escape all the other demonic activities that are taking over not just the house, but the forest around them as well?
The new Evil Dead script was kinda good. I mean, like I said, how many ways can you tell a horror story where a bunch of friends head to a remote cabin. I HAY-TED the script for Cabin In The Woods, but I have to give Whedon credit for AT LEAST trying something different. No matter which way you carved the chicken, we were still dealing with a chicken here. With that said, the execution of its tired premise was solid. What I mean by that is that the story always kept moving. The characters, while not amazing, were better than for most of these movies. Mia, especially, felt fresh.
In fact, that’s one of the things I dug most about the plot. Usually for these flicks, writers stick their characters out in that cabin without really thinking about why they’re there. All they care about is getting them there and then having crazy shit happen to them. I liked that there was a goal at the beginning of all this: get Mia sober. Help her through this detox period. I also liked how that played into the possession aspect. When she did become possessed, the others didn’t pick up on it, assuming withdrawal was hitting her hard, which gave the demon some added time to take over the house. I have no idea if this is a recent addition or was in the original or not. But it worked well here.
Speaking of characters, I was disappointed there wasn’t more going on with our lead, David. There’s this sort of weak exploration of his flaw, being that he doesn’t “commit,” which is first brought up when he hasn’t set a date with Natalie, then later when he won’t kill his sister. Besides the fact that a “doesn’t commit” flaw probably shouldn’t apply when you’re tasked with killing your own sister, the flaw itself felt half-assed.
A half-assed character flaw (and the subsequent character arc that evolves from that flaw) is often worse than not giving your character a flaw at all. That’s because you’re putting your flaw out there clear as day. It’s said multiple times that David DOESN’T COMMIT. Except I don’t remember a moment in the script where David overcomes that flaw. Shit just ends up getting crazy and there’s no time for David to think about his flaw, gain the courage to overcome it, then change it. A flaw has to be executed consistently and through action if possible. Establish your character’s flaw (i.e. he’s a coward), then throughout the script, keep putting him in situations where he can either be cowardly or brave. Have him choose to be a coward each time, but become braver and braver with each new choice. Then at the end, when the big moment comes, have him become brave. Boom, he’s overcome his flaw.
There’s nothing special here. But there’s just enough to keep you entertained. Which is sad, because if you’re going to remake something – especially if you’re one of the people involved with the original – you’d like for there to be a reason that amounts to more than a cash-grab. You’d like for there to be something today that you couldn’t have done then, that would improve your vision of the original film. Does Sam Raimi, after those 3 Spiderman movies, really need more money? I don’t think so. Which makes this remake a peculiarity, if not a reasonably executed one.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: If you’re not going to commit to a flaw 100%, don’t include one. Don’t just put a flaw in there to satisfy the screenwriting book rules, then mush your way through its execution for the second half of your screenplay. That kind of amateur move doesn’t slip past us. We notice. Make sure it’s seamless and natural. Make sure the flaw fits your character and your story so that it doesn’t feel forced. And commit to it. Never start something you can’t finish.
